Prayer

One of the boundaries I set myself for these Blogs was to restrict my comment to religious matters, and certainly not to stray into politics. There are more than enough ‘inanities’ in religion alone to feed a regular blog. But when a politician, and in this case a very senior one, chooses to stray onto my patch, I feel that all bets are off. The Vice President of the United States no less, Mr J.D. Vance, has upset a lot of Brits and Europeans lately with his comments about us reneging on the western values of free speech that, apparently, his ‘new sheriff in town’ values highly. Like many, I felt affronted by those comments. I am proud of my country’s democracy and its long traditions of tolerance. We are far from perfect, but to be lectured on these matters by the representative of a country that has a long history of intolerance towards people of colour, indigenous and imported, and is currently pursuing policies of imperialism, isolationism and racism seems, to me at least, a little rich. What I do want to comment on is Mr Vance’s reference to the Scottish case of a man who was prosecuted and fined for praying outside an abortion clinic. If he was right about these matters, it would be a case for considerable concern. To prosecute prayer is to prosecute thoughts and I had thought that that particular dystopia was still some way off, in this green and pleasant land. Sir ‘Oinky’ Starmer seems intent on invading many freedoms in pursuit of his socialist utopia, but even for him, I would have thought that was a step too far. [See – that is why I avoid politics here; one step in those waters and I am soon splashing away with abandon.] But Mr Vance was not right. In fact, his whole attack is based on complete fabrication.

The facts are these. The law in question is the Public Space Protection Order [PSPO]. This seeks to prevent protests, including prayers and vigils, within a designated safe zone around an abortion clinic. The justification for this was is that, while protesting to influence government is a precious freedom in our democracy, protesingt with the aim of shaming, insulting and psychologically harming individuals who are going about their entirely legal business of supplying or procuring abortion services, is not to be tolerated. Mr Vance and others of the ‘pro-life’ persuasion may not like this, and of course, anything to do with abortion involves serious and sensitive moral issues, but the key thing here is that in our democracy, we empower Parliament to weigh these things up and reach decisions. In this case, it did so under conditions of a Free Vote which means that MPs were not directed to follow any particular party line but to do what we elect them for – follow their own consciences. In the actual case in question, the defendant was standing, allegedly in prayer, outside an abortion clinic. He was asked by a Community Officer to move out of the PSPO zone. He refused and the Officer then engaged with him for an hour and forty minutes. Despite his claim to the contrary, this was clearly, as the Judge said, a ‘deliberate’ act of defiance of the law. Mr Vance also alleged that the government had leafleted homes within the zone to the effect that even prayer within those homes could be illegal. The Scottish Government has said unequivocally that no such leaflet was sent. And only a moment’s thought should be enough to convince they are not lying: protesters travel from all over for this sort of activity, and people living in the zone are no more likely to protest on the issue than anyone else. And in any case, how do you prove someone has been praying, rather than, say, dreaming about anticipated sinfulness? The PSPO does not outlaw prayer, it outlaws intimidation.

It is a matter of huge concern that senior members of the government of a superpower choose to make public remarks about other democracies that are demonstrably untrue and deeply offensive. Whatever town Mr Trump is ‘sheriff’ of, it isn’t this one, and we should thank God for it daily, if we believed for a moment that he cares or even exists.

God Squad

Recent scandals and resignations at the highest levels of the Anglican Church in England set me to wondering just what motivates someone to become an Anglican priest these days, and what they actually believe. From recent evidence, one might theorise that access to young persons for paedophilic activity is one motivation, but it would be ungenerous (one hopes) to assume a more general problem. My anecdotal experience, which is admittedly limited, is that modern clergy are a very mixed bunch indeed. One very noticeable trend is the number of women ordained: roughly a third of all Anglican clergy are now women and the figure is rising fast. This is an extraordinary change. It seems only yesterday that conservative church members were fighting against the ordination of women priests at all. This must mean something but one hesitates to theorise. The church also seems to be in gradual retreat from its traditional teaching on LGBTQ+ issues and there are certainly more priests, openly from that community, than before. How do they cope with the Bible’s antiquated views on sexuality one wonders. In the case of the celebrity vicar, the Rev. Richard Coles, we know the answer of course: he lied about his sexual activity to his congregation and his superiors, although he seems to have suffered no consequences for his transgressions of church law or his dishonesty. Yet again, one hesitates to theorise.

A 2014 YouGov survey revealed that 2 per cent of Anglican clergy do not believe in God, which is about 400 of them. I suspect the real number is probably higher, although it must vary depending on the state of individual faith at any given time. Evidence for this atheistic tendency is that the same poll reveals 16 per cent were ‘uncertain about the nature of God’. I thought the Bible was pretty clear on that one, if not a lot else. I would hypothesise that a majority of clergy no longer believe a great deal of the Bible’s teachings – for example, on sexuality, on hell, on the need for salvation. What do they preach about, one wonders? All of these Biblical beliefs are enshrined in the 39 Articles of Anglican faith. Back in Victorian times, a clergyman was required actually to sign those Articles before he could be ordained. This is no longer the case. So, there is absolutely no way of knowing what specifically any given clergyman believes – if anything at all. And there is virtually nothing in the way of survey data to give an overall picture. I wonder why this is? These days, we have polls on virtually every aspect of human life and there is no shortage of PhD students looking for subjects of study. So why do we not know what Anglican clergy believe, individually and in aggregate; what motivates them to do what they do; and why do we have no idea what function they think they are performing in society? I suspect that the Anglican Church itself shies away from any and all inquiry into such matters because it knows that the answers would be most unwelcome and would undermine its very raison d’etre.

Kumbh Mela

I woke this morning to the news that a dozen, probably more, people have been killed at the Kumbh Mela. I wrote the Blog below a few weeks ago. I see no reason to change it although clearly the river pollution is not the only danger and it probably is more dangerous than the Notting Hill Carnival. And my final thought below is emphasised by this quote from one of the participants, determined to carry on, despite the disaster: ‘Faith is above everything else for me’. There’s no arguing with that.

As I write, the Kumbh Mela is getting under way. No less than 400 million Hindus are making their way from all parts of India to the River Ganges where they will immerse themselves in its waters in a ritual of soul and sin cleansing. Apparently, the astrological signs indicate that now is the time. One must hope that the invisible cleansing is efficacious because the Ganges is one of the most polluted major rivers of the world and heaven only knows what contagions can be contracted from its waters! To put this mass migration into context the Muslim Hajj to the Kaaba in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, involves about 2 million people a year. The Mela only occurs once every 12 years, so over that period, a mere 24 million Muslims make the pilgrimage – less than 1% of those involved in the Mela. On the other hand, 400 million is less than 3% of the 1.5 Billion souls that inhabit modern India. It is a logistical nightmare nonetheless. I have no idea what it must cost to house and feed so many in one place. Apparently, the tent city that has been erected is lit by 60,000 lightbulbs so just the electricity cost must be astronomical. Presumably, the costs are born by Government? Whatever, a number of thoughts occur to me.

The first is the reaction of a virtual tourist. What an amazing assault on the senses – the sight, sound, and smell must be overpowering. Hordes of gaudily dressed people of all ages and sexes, smeared with mud, rainbow coloured make-up, and with every possible arrangement of long, tangled hair have not been seen in the West since the Hippies at Haight Ashbury in the Sixties. This is about as alien to Western sensibilities as it gets. Very different from the home life of our own dear Archbishop of Canterbury, to misquote. But then, looking past the immediate response, one starts to wonder at the huge waste of all that human time and energy. I suppose it is all harmless; no one is threatened and the Notting Hill Carnival is probably a more dangerous gathering. Certainly, it contrasts starkly with the dour clothing and faces of those on Hajj. But India is a very poor country (despite its atomic weapons and space technology!). Would not all that energy and money be better spent in improving the daily life of ordinary Indians, rather than engaging in a spurious ritual to redeem imaginary souls and sins? And yet, then again, perhaps the psychological benefit of participating in such a joyous communal ritual is worth more than mere money. Perhaps our Western secularism has lost sight of what is needed to get through life. Maybe. But my final thought is that 400 million people is one hell of a lot, and it dwarfs the hopes of those of us who would persuade the world that religion should be consigned to the dustbin of history. There is a mountain to climb.